Andrew Fletcher from the UK, is asking to enter this arena.
I hope to bring into this group some fresh arguments and evidences and
expect a certain amount of flack in the process.
I have listened to the arguments presented in the strings on this group and
feel that the activity in neuroscience and biology here may be a reasonable
throw in a few lions.
I would like to ask a few simple questions which will in due course lead us
to where my work in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord
injury, began and is heading.
Your obvious knowledge and experiences in the nervous system outweighs my
own, so I hope you will put up with my ignorance in some aspects of future
discussion. And if I step of the line, which I intend to, please remember
I intend to bathe in your experience and hope you too share my
hunger for knowledge.
In The Beginning
Everything we are and everything we will ever become develops from a few
drops of fluid! How could circulation of these fluids begin in a chickens
egg for instance, or the seed of a tree? I have observed circulation taking
place in a developing embryo, long before the heart is formed. This was
a couple of years ago on a TV documentary in the UK.
How does water really reach the leaves of trees? No working models exist
which demonstrate these very principles on which science is founded. If
osmosis, capillary action and root pressure are correct then show us how
they lift water to the top of a Canadian Redwood. After all they are all non
living physical forces.
If we want to understand the mechanisms involved in the nervous system,
should we not start right back at the beginning and attempt to identify the
origins of circulation within?
If we get lost on a journey we either continue blindly until the road stops
or we can retrace our steps until we know exactly where we are.
Could someone therefore sum up the accepted mechanism for circulation in the
cerebrospinal fluid, so that we have an independent benchmark for further
discussions? Only then will we see if this road leads us to any conclusions.
<364D7007.E5C6ADAA at pop3.concentric.net> K Collins wrote
Depending on environmental conditions, evolutionary dynamics go both ways...
"evolution" is optimisation with respect to the local energy gradient...
that's all genetics is, too.
It is within this statement albeit brief, that the truth exists. Once it is
appreciated that environmental factors are interacting with the circulation
of all bodily fluids, our reactions to weather patterns, and anything which
interferes with the gravitational pull of Earth becomes of worthy
I would like to enter into discussion also with Ken Collins, as his
layperson mode of writings reveals that he is committed to "T"ruth and is
prepared to go to prison for his beliefs! I wander how many more people
could say that?
kzelhart at mail.edge.net Wrote in message72s7c5$1mt at apple.telalink.net
I think the only point of any of this is a search for, and a continual
testing of the truth as we understand it. What is true for us today may
change because of evidence presented tomorrow. We must always question what
we know, else we become complacent and ignorant.
On this note I wish to end this message and begin this debate
Kind regards Andrew